August 07, 2006

• It'd be nice if he got the last book of the Bible right. It's REVELATION singular! This also happens all the time in movies, and it bugs me to no end. He seems a bit unhinged. Like his character in The Usual Suspects. Which I liked.
• *entering nearest pedanticle* Whom I liked.
• Fenster was the best character in that movie. Cop: What are you saying? Fenster: I said he'll flip you. Cop: He'll what? Fenster: Flip you. Flip ya for real.
• I thought the catholic way was to quietly allow these kinds of things, go there yourself, then go to confession and everything is fine? What do these people think they are, protestants?
• Whom I liked. I would like to put it to you that "which" is entirely acceptable here for the following reasons: (a) f8x, a writer of scripts, is entirely aware that a character in a film is not an actual human being, but is a fiction created (initially) by the application of words to paper. While it is perfectly normal to refer to such lines of text as actual people for the purpose of discussing fictional works, it is surely not unacceptable for a writer not to refer to such creations as real people, in which case "which" might be employed; (b) That should be especially acceptable when one is discussing, firstly, the person who plays the particular role, in this case Mr Baldwin; and immediately afterwards the character or role that the person is playing, in this case Mr Fenster, as a use of "who" in relation to the latter would surely intimate a troubling equivalence of their being, and yet it is obvious that Mr Fenster is not, in fact, a "real" human being, while Mr Baldwin is, unfortunately, a real human being, or very close approximation thereto; (c) While the use of "which" is perhaps ambiguous in that it (and hence f8x's attitude of liking) might apply to either the movie "The Usual Suspects" or the character in the movie, i.e. Mr Fenster; this is obviously entirely intentional given that f8x likes both movie and character, and hence is a poetic usage whereby two truthful statements are communicated with brevity and style, and is thus to be applauded.
• "What'll happen next? Can a woman marry her German Shepherd dog?" wait...that's illegal?
• Stephen Baldwin has just returned from California, where he was promoting his new Christian skateboard movie. None of Stephen Baldwin, California, Christianity or Skateboarding comes out of that sentence with their reputation improved.
• What'll happen next? Can a woman marry her German Shepherd dog? That'd make a good plot for Bio-Dome II.
• Like his character in The Usual Suspects. Which I liked. I liked The Usual Suspects too.
• So long as the German Shepherd can understand the nature of the contract (s)he is getting into, and in full understanding of the consequences of doing so can give its consent, I don't see what the problem is. Let fish marry, for all I care, as long as contract law is not being violated.
• (d)Lines of text are too far too palimpsesticklish to be penned, let alone corraled in even minor roles, or adequately costumated, thus further depeopling whatever rags and tatters of personhood might, in less hypotheticklish and delicate binding, have adequated their presence on paper or even in the spoken word, the while being denuded of plus fours and neckties. (e)Mr Baldwin, it seems, is actually a piano. (f)Mr Fenster has been religionated to a back pew. Latest word from the big cheese is that Mr Wayne Wamble may be asked to cut the mustard in his homely stead. But thus has not, this far, been opticklishly substaunchitooted. (g)Anyway, the whole production is being re-writted as amusickle, and no furry partickles are expected to manifest be forte. (h)*wrests his briefcase*
• (i) refute, retour your lines of thrust, arrowing thus into the person of the thespwin steve-bald, riddling the creature to throw off his humanbeingness by the mere whim of his Fenster pretending. (j)oke me not to create your bad, bald fensterwin creature from the bones of St Steven's thus arrowed corpulscules. It jerks us, just irks us. (k)now then my sharp words are out for your newbreathing logo sapiens and hunt with stencil and comma and apostophed venom to wrest them back into your griefcase, shut and tumble the locks and forever click-quick their incessant dialogore.
• his new Christian skateboard movie the C-boys?
• We have fallen into a permanent state of quidwacky.
• Gleaming the Cross.
• I believe it's a loose interpretation of the Book of Ollie rory. Blessed are the kerb-grinders...
• That bestiality argument always slays me. It's like saying if we let people eat banana pudding, we're giving them tacit permission to eat thumbtacks.
• It mentions catholic and then born-again. Catholics don't get born again, so I'm a bit confused as to what they are trying to say. However, I thought the link to the second page of the article was quite funny "hasn't hurt his acting career". He has a career??? acts of terrorism lead to being born again??? So what does our involvement in the middle east lead to????
• dirigibleman wins!
• Be not a busybody, lest some other bigger busybody busy themselves about your body.
• Gay Marriage: As American as banana pudding.
• Well, to a layman, "born again" has a different meaning. It's applied to anyone who either adopts or renews religious zeal.
• What's a glory hole?
• I'd answer that, but I'd really be sticking my...neck out.
• It's a hole that leads to a source of high-quality mineral ore. There's gold in them thar hills.
• There is a growing movement in the Catholic church that considers itself either "fundamentalist" or "born again." Obviously, the two are not the same. You can be born again without being a fundy (though most, if not all, Christian fundies consider themselves to be born again.) Being born again refers to a particular outlook on sin, and a certain commitment to... I don't want to say religious fervor, but strong religious feeling? I could expand but this is getting too long anyway :) (I think fervor implies that you're going to bug others, and this is not neccesarily the case.) I was blown away when I met some Catholic fundamentalists, because I thought the two were mutually exclusive, but the movement is growing (usually apace with the Catholic movement against Vatican II -- these are the guys who think that JPII was too liberal, and that's kind of scary). These are your Mel Gibson Catholics (I'm not implying any anti-semitism here, just a very particular religious and political viewpoint).
• *googles furiously* Oh. Oh, I see. Well then.
• Being "born again" tends to describe the non-catholic flavors of Christianity, and what it entails is an acknowledgement that one is a sinner*, which then is followed by a spiritual purging whereby the person openly admits that Jesus died on the cross for their sins to be washed away. Tada! Squeeky-clean Christian. Being a fundamentalist (or orthodox) is more along the lines of adhering to written doctrine and dogma of the religious movement. There are fundamentalists for every religion, so the term isn't just for Christians. ________________________ *Due primarily from the original sin of the book of Genesis, where Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden for seeking knowledge over being obedient. Sound familiar?
• ACK! not more religiousness! Oh, and even if the German Shephard knows what he's getting into, can we be sure a woman understands the contract? After all, you have to sign a contract with the Humane Society when you adopt, but that doesn't prevent people from taking their dogs back.
• You shall know our religiosity
• I don't think the doctrine of original sin makes us inately guilty, does it? I think original sin causes us to grow ill and die. Or perhaps things are different in child-baptising sects.
• Original sin (also seen as "the fall") implies that each of us are born into sin, and in order to remove it from ourselves we must make the conscious (free-will) choice to be saved via whatever mechanism the church requires. It's a great tactic, in that it means you're a bad guy straight from birth, even though you might never have done anything wrong. Your only chance for redemption is to seek help from the same party that has sold you the line of your helplessness and hopelessness. Personally, I think it's a load of crap. Just as Scientology attacks psychology because it is the one segment of society that poses a serious threat to the "doctrine" of Scientology, so too does Christianity decry the pursuit of knowledge (i.e., creationism vs. evolution). Faith (believing without evidence) is a virtue, and the pursuit of knowledge (believing only evidence) is a sin.
• Ignorance is bless?
• > Catholics don't get born again agreed. catholics return to the bosom of mother church, perhaps with renewed zeal or fervour. the original baptism of a catholic is considered to be a rebirth in christ, so to describe an adult catholic as "born again" is odd to say the least.
• Ah, here it is: From the Catholic Catechism:

  417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin". 418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence").

  So we are not judged according to Adam's sin, but we will die, and are predisposed to sin because of it.
• As in many of these discussions, I present the infallable text of the Wiki. Read the bit on Gnosticism. It's interesting.
• 419 My name is God. I am the family Lawyer of Mr Pope Benedict 60, here in Rome. I am contacting you with regard to transfer of a huge sum of money from the deceased account. Though I know that a transaction of this magnitude will make any one apprehensive and worried, but I am assuring you that everything has been taken care off, and all will be well at the end of the day. I decided to contact you due to the urgency of this transaction.
• Ignorance is bless? I declare that Pun Of The Day. There was a wall-hanging in my childhood church school classroom (Baptist) that said "In Adam's Fall, We Sinned All."
• so too does Christianity decry the pursuit of knowledge (i.e., creationism vs. evolution). Faith (believing without evidence) is a virtue, and the pursuit of knowledge (believing only evidence) is a sin. You're attributing fundamentalist doctrines to all Christian sects. The leadership of the Catholic church, for example, does not push creationism. They are tacitly evolutionists. A bit embarassed about that whole Galileo thing, they've been more pro-science in recent centuries. The Anglicans too, outside of Nigeria at least, are remarkably sane when it comes to science.
• You're attributing fundamentalist doctrines to all Christian sects. Yes, I tend to differentiate between the Christians and Catholics. They worship the same god, but with vastly different methods and perspectives (and documentation, for that matter). I understand that Catholics have accepted evolution. My emphasis is on the non-catholic Christians. I think I have said this already.
• "The constitution is important, but the emotional well-being of our people is even more important," says Del Pizzo. I...have no words.
• Lots of Protestant sects have accepted evolution, as well. As a kid in a Baptist church, our pastor pretty much said "evolution is how God did creation." While that's not a strictly evolutionist viewpoint, it certainly isn't against it. I think it's pretty much the fundies who disagree with evolution (because of their whole "literal truth of the Bible" thing), and not all Protestants -- or indeed, all evangelicals -- are fundies. I don't mean to attack you, nunia (in fact, I always enjoy reading what you have to say). I'm just a big believer in defining terms well :)
• Oh yeah meredithea, I know that there are some Protestant groups that accept evolution (or, more specifically, do not see evolution as contradicting their worldview). But on a whole, the balance of Christianity in America dips toward the non-evolutionist ideology (or "fundies," as it were, of which there are many magnitudes and many more than most people think). This anti-evolution (or anti-science) mindset is represented many times in the various surveys splashed about lately. But yes, I can totally see your point.
• Monkeyfilter: A bit embarassed about that whole Galileo thing.
• I always prefered Daniel.
• ...Faith (believing without evidence) is a virtue... Faith is not believing without evidence. Blind faith is believing without evidence. Faith is a belief that the evidence will stand to scrutiny. Like when any scientist submits a paper for peer review, they have faith in that paper, and they have faith in it's conclusion. When a person supports the conclusion, without reading the paper, that's blind faith in science.
• Faith in science is different from faith in a diety. Faith in science comes from the understanding that scientific models will all obey the laws of the known universe, with slight modifications according to scale. Furthermore, the scientist's faith also lies in knowing that true science is falsifiable and reproducible, and that all of the assertions made are based on evidence that is accessible. So, yes, a scientist has faith in the accumulation of knowledge that has come before. Without it, we would constantly need to reteach (and prove to) ourselves the basic concepts, and our modern civilization would not be able to enjoy such things as automobiles or vaccines. In fact, the basic laws and theories of science are tested regularly by students in physics and chemistry labs all over the world. Basic stuff. Faith in a diety is the expectation that one must believe without tangible evidence of its existence. Religious faith does not stand up to scientific scrutiny, no matter how you cut it, because it is based on principles that are outside of the observable realm. Blind faith or not, it is still creating a sense of credibility for something that cannot be measured or quantified.
• So, wait. We fight fundamental Islam by trying to imitate its morals as closely as we can? Note to self: avoid all films featuring this clown.
• A LARGE part of science is about shit that's outside the observable realm. The things that can and have been observed are coupled with logic and reasoning to come up with inferences. The Big Bang isn't observable, it's something that's been inferred. Faith in the Bag Bang is when you are willing to let other examine the proccess you used to reach the conclusion that Big Bang happened. Blind faith in the Big Bang is when you are adamant in the conclusion, with no regard to the proccess. There are True Believers in science— people who will believe anything as long as you preface it with "Scientists claim..." These people have blind faith in science. They don't have faith in science. Likewise, there are people in religion that have faith in their beliefs, not blind faith. They've used observation about the universe, coupled with logic and reasoning, to infer the conclusion that they reached. These people aren't as common as I'd like, because I find it to be enjoyable when someone has enough faith in their beliefs to let me examine them, as opposed to someone who has blind faith in their beliefs, who get enraged whenever those beliefs are examined. It doesn't matter if these beliefs are religious or scientific; People with blind faith in science are just as offensive to hear converse as those with blind faith in religion. People with faith in a religion can be just as pleasant as someone with faith in science. I think we are saying pretty much the same thing. I'm just not willing to let them use the term "faith" when the opposite term "blind faith" is more appropriate. It devalues the word, and allows them to challenge science with word games like "You might not have any faith in science, but I have faith in the bible." You create a sense of credibility when you allow them the term "faith" to describe their lack of actual faith in their beliefs.
• Statistics can't prove correlations. However, science is quantified with statistics and released to the media this way. Because you flipped a coin two hundred times and 89 of those times it resulted in a heads doesn't mean that you've proved that a coin will land on heads roughly half the time—even if you got closer results by flipping it ten billion more times. Proofs belong to the internally consistent domains of logic, not observation, as far as I can tell. But those that defy science in order to "prove" theism are morons. Likewise, science does not preclude any sort of god, including Descartes "evil genius." Ignoring some of the rules of a system ignores the entirity of the system. I'm not saying anything new here, am I?
• > Statistics can't prove correlations yes they can, at least for a given set of data. if i observe or demonstrate full or perfect covariance in two variables, i've proved correlation within the confines of the observations.
• Yeah, I agree with roryk. Stats can prove correllations (and often do), but not causation.
• Theologically, faith is used to cover circumstances where knowledge isn't possible. You have evidence, but not enough to back yourself up 100%. People have faith in God because they can't have direct knowledge. A priest/prof I had in college (I went to a Catholic uni, though I'm not Catholic) always used to have a trick question on one of his tests: True/False, in heaven, people do not believe in God. The answer is "true," because in heaven people have direct knowledge of God, so the don't need faith or belief. I always thought that was an interesting distinction.
• Whoops, causation! Thank youse.